An insomniac Scots Calvinist looks at the Church and the world and wonders where it all went wrong

When it comes to Islam the automatic response of our self appointed moral arbiters is deflection, denial and projection.

With every Islamic inspired atrocity there is an inevitable backlash. Not from supposed Islamophobes bent on wreaking revenge by attacking Muslims, but the cry of progressives warning about a backlash of Islamophobes bent on wreaking revenge by attacking Muslims. Following the Sydney café siege even Australia has succumbed.

How Australians Reacted To The Sydney Siege

How Everyday Australians Actually Reacted To The Sydney Siege

Hashtag activists have sprung into action to defend the theoretical victims of an Islamophobia which wasn’t happening. ‘I’ll ride with you’ is their slogan, and “#illridewithyou” their Twitter hashtag. The idea was that Muslims couldn’t ride on Australia’s public transport in safely because bigots would attack them, so good-hearted strangers had to ‘ride’ with them.

It appears that on Monday 1000 miles away in Brisbane Rachel Jacobs, a Green candidate, was on a train reading in her paper about the siege when she noticed a woman in the carriage taking off her headscarf.

‘Tears sprang to my eyes and I was struck by feelings of anger, sadness and bitterness’, she wrote. Not tears for the victims in the Lindt Café, rather tears for ‘victims of the siege who were not in the café’. Victims like the woman who took off her headscarf.

Jacobs later admitted that ‘She might not even be a Muslim or she could have just been warm’. Nevertheless Jacobs felt compelled to start her Twitter campaign for the ‘other victims’.

This epitomises the arrogance which sees progressives as enlightened and morally superior to the rest of us who are, in their eyes, knuckle dragging red-necks liable to explode into a pogrom against anything we think ‘other’. The fact that a backlash against Muslims doesn’t happen never seems to penetrate the prejudices of the progressives, they have the narrative of their moral superiority to maintain and nothing is allowed to dent it, especially facts.

If there is a genuine fear of a backlash against Muslims it is an irrational fear disconnected from any evidence. If genuine its purpose would be to suppress uncomfortable dissent and convince our elites of their own righteousness, a self-righteousness which places them above criticism and beyond responsibility for their actions.

The warnings of immanent ‘backlash’ are nothing more than a diversion which deflecting attention from the real atrocity, the actual people terrorised and murdered in the name of Allah.

Tony Abbott 'Move Along, No Problem Here'

Tony Abbott
‘Move Along, No Problem Here’

Every Western leader whose country has suffered an Islamic terrorist attack has responded with the denial that it has anything to do with any religion. Even Australia’s defiantly non-progressive prime minister Tony Abbot joined in this week.

‘The point I keep making is that the ISIL death cult has nothing to do with any religion, any real religion. It has nothing to do with any particular community. It is something to which sick individuals succumb.’ So ISISL, which perpetrates its atrocities in the name of Islam, which flies a black flag proclaiming Islam and seeks out non-Muslims to slaughter or sell into slavery, actually has nothing to do with Islam.

Political and community leaders continually parrot the line that repeated acts of Islamic terrorism have nothing to do with the religion which the Muslim terrorists equally invariably proclaim as the inspiration for their atrocities.

Here in the UK our leaders do the same. Following the beheading of Lee Rigby David Cameron assured us, ‘There is nothing in Islam that justifies acts of terror’. In this he differed from the two Islamists who shouted “Allahu Akbar” and quoted 22 verses from the Koran as they murdered a British soldier on a London street.

Following the Nairobi shopping mall massacre that noted Islamic scholar David Cameron assured us, ‘They don’t represent Islam or Muslims in Britain or anywhere else in the world’. Cameron also assured us that Islamic Sate has ‘nothing to do with the great religion of Islam, a religion of peace’.

Not to be left behind Theresa May, Home Secretary and possible Tory leadership contender told the Conservative Party Conference in 2014, ‘This hateful ideology has nothing to do with Islam… Let the message go out that we know Islam is a religion of peace.’

This week, following the school massacre in Peshawar when Taliban gunmen murdered 141, including 132 children in the name of their brand of Islam, Cameron again assured us that it, ‘Is nothing to do with one of the world’s great religions – Islam, which is a religion of peace.’

Lesser lights (Twitter bores) choose diversion and regurgitate the accusation that Christianity is as bad. It is common to cite Roman Catholic support for the IRA. That the IRA was largely made up of Catholics and drew its support from that community and that there were those in the priesthood who supported and sheltered them is beyond doubt. However, the IRA, vile as they were, never claimed to be a Catholic organisation or murdered people in the name of Jesus.

If, as is claimed, ‘All religions are the same’ where are the Christian terrorists? Think of what has gone before the Lindt Café murders; the Twin Towers, the London bombings, the Bali Bombing, the Madrid train bombing, the Boko Haram atrocities, the interminable persecution of religious minorities across the Middle East, the Peshawar bombings and school massacre. Were these atrocities perpetrated by a breakaway faction of the Militant Methodists? Perhaps that is what the Salvation Army is really up to, or maybe it was a branch of ‘Anglicans for Al-Qa’ida’.

For those who will inevitably cry out ‘What about the Iraq War, what about Fallujah etc.’ consider the facts. In every country involved in the Iraq War, into which the Labour government dragged the UK, there were massive anti-war movements supported by Christians. The Christian denominations of the UK opposed the war. The Vatican opposed the war. The dwindling number of Christians in Iraq bear testimony to what Christians have suffered as result of the war. That war, and the horrors flowing from it, was not done in the name of Christianity.

On the other hand world wide Islamic terrorism is defiantly perpetrated in the name of Islam, and those involved justify their actions, the intention of imposing Sharia law and the creating of an Islamic state or society, with reference to the Koran and the life of Muhammed.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but practically all terrorist are Muslims. But according to our leaders ‘All this has nothing to do with Islam.’

Robert Burns, in one of his best remembered lines made the plea:

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An’ foolish notion.

Unfortunately we mostly continue blithely on our way, unconsicous of our oh so apparent foolishness, none more so that our politicians.

Dennis Skinner, Labour MP for Bolsover, is in a number of ways to be admired. He is resolutely Old Labour, holding to the principles he has always held and refusing to bow down to the wishes of the metrosexual, progressive tendency prevalent amongst the millionaires on the Labour front bench.

Dennis Skinner The Beast of Bolsover

Dennis Skinner
 The Beast of Bolsover

Dennis Skinner, the Beast of Bolsover as he is dubbed because of his love of putting the boot into the Conservatives, has said that he would turn down a recently proposed 10% pay rise for MPs until the government ‘unfreeze[s] the pay of working-class people’, and ‘restores[s] free collective bargaining. And that won’t be for a very long time’. He has voted against every EU treaty brought before Parliament. He is one of the few Labour MP’s who has both a working class background and outlook.

When Mark Reckless, UKIP winner of the Rochester and Strood by-election took his seat in Parliament last Friday he intervened in the debate on the privatisation of the NHS. As a Labour backbencher, Dennis Skinner, took this opportunity to attack the UKIP policy on immigration. He gave the example that he had undergone what he termed a ‘United Nations heart by-pass’, in which the cardiologist was a Syrian and the surgeon a Malaysian, the procedure also involved a Dutch doctor and a Nigerian registrar. Thus, in the minds of progressives everywhere, were the values of multicultural Britain exemplified to the discomfiture of the supposedly racist UKIP.

If we step back, however, and view this from another direction we can argue that the British NHS depends for its continued existence on colonial exploitation and racism. Presumably Holland, placed 17th in the World Health Organisation rankings one ahead of the UK at 18th, is advanced enough to spare a few doctors to prop up a floundering NHS, but what about Syria, Nigeria and Malaysia?

Malaysia, ranked 50th, has an impressive public health system, but can it really afford to export trained surgeons to the UK? Malaysia is in very close proximity to countries such as Indonesia ranked 92 and Burma 190 and bottom of the list, where the public health provision is best described as scanty. Don’t poor Asians have as much need of decent health care as British MP’s?

The WHO ranked Syria 108th in 2000 and since then the situation has plumeted drastically. Can Syria, in its present state of societal collapse really afford to export trained cardiologists? Don’t the sufferings of the victims in war torn Syria have a greater need of the attention of expert doctors than British pensioners?

The WHO ranks Nigeria 187 out of 190 in terms of public health provision. Yet Dennis Skinner and progressives throughout the country reckon that it is a thing to be proud of when trained medics leave Nigeria with its vast medical needs to come and work in the UK.

When they boast of the ‘rainbow NHS’ what they are really saying is that coming to the West, whether the UK, the USA, Canada or any other advanced country, to operate on, treat and nurse white people is more important than staying at home and working amidst the largely non-white people who are in desperate need of them. Amongst any others than progressives this would be termed the most blatant colonial exploitation, if not outright racism.

Instead of revelling in the unacknowledged racism of leaving coloured people in desperate need so that we in Britain can have decent health care, perhaps our progressives should be asking questions as to how the UK found itself in the position where we are dependent on ignoring the sufferings of others for the relief of our own medical problems.

Among the questions they don’t ask are:
Why should the UK, with a supposedly advanced education system, be so dependent on poaching medical staff from countries with little in the way of public education?
Is our education system really so ramshackle that it is unable to turn out young men and women both willing and able to take up a career in medicine?
Why are young Britons unable or unwilling to work in the NHS?
Why is it that medics, trained in the UK at considerable public expense, should find it so unattractive to work in the NHS that 5000 per year, up 12% since 2008, are considering emigration to Australia, New Zealand and the Americas?

1800 years before Burns penned his lines Jesus put it very simply. He warned us about the danger of being so intent on the speck of dust in another’s eye that we ignored the plank in our own. UKIP’s immigration policy should come under close scrutiny, but not at the expense of blithely ignoring the societal breakdown occurring at present in the UK, or the casual and unacknowledged racism of many progressives.


Our oh so sophisticated society congratulates itself on throwing out Christianity and accounts itself liberated and free to pursue its own dreams without the hampering dead-weight of outdated dogma constantly hindering its advance to the sunlit uplands of a progressive utopia. Unfortunately there is always a price to pay.

One of the great benefits to society of Christian dogma is that it holds a balance between human greatness and human weakness. One the one hand man is made in the image of God, ‘a little lower than the angels’, on the other hand he is a fallen creature living in the midst of a fallen creation. At once of infinite worth, and at the same time subject to total depravity.

It is the latter doctrine which has been vigorously rejected by our society. True it is unfortunate in its designation. Total depravity gives the impression of being utterly depraved; when what total depravity indicates is the breadth of our fall. Flawed and distorted in every facet of our being, we are not the people we were created to be.

‘What a monstrous doctrine’, cry our undereducated utopian progressives, ‘Away with it’. Yet it is the doctrine of total depravity which has kept society sane and helped curb our selfish egos. If we throw out the very idea of human weakness and retain only the concept of human goodness we end up with today’s Western world, a society of unlimited self-conceit. Discarding it has brought about a society in which we celebrate self promotion and ignore real achievement.

Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasiemnko is a chunk of freezing rock about two miles long travelling through space at 135,000 mph. It is more than 300,000,000 miles away, so far from the earth that it takes radio signals 28 minutes to pass between it and earth. Yet pass those radio signals did. A team of scientists from the European Space Agency launched and guided the 15 stone Rosetta space craft close enough to 67P to detach the Philae probe, steer Philae to the comet and land on its surface.

This is an event which actually deserves the description of ‘mind boggling'; those of us with little scientific background stand amazed at what has been achieved, those with a scientific background stand and applaud.

Yet Dr Matt Taylor, a brilliant space scientist acting at one time as spokesman for the team, felt forced to apologise with tears in his eyes for something which he had done. This brilliant astrophysicist who had achieved a goal which must have consumed his life for more than a decade had sinned at the moment of his greatest triumph. ‘I have made a big mistake, I have offended people and I am sorry about this.’ The ‘big mistake’ which caused offence? He had worn a shirt on television which some people thought ‘inappropriate’.

To Boldly Wear ...

Whilst being interviewed on television Dr Taylor wore a rather luridly coloured bowling shirt, designed and gifted by a woman, covered with depictions of rather well endowed young ladies, nothing pornographic just cartoons of rather nubile, clothed women. This caused a storm of abuse on Twitter, that electronic lavatory wall for the emotionally incontinent.

Most would rejoice that the achievements of Dr Taylor and his team would be enough to inspire young people, including women, to take up a life of science, but according to the intolerant Twitterati abusers his shirt is enough to put women off science forever. Perhaps we should be glad, the kind of woman who is so feeble minded to be put off a life in science because of one shirt is simply not tough minded enough to take up science in the first place.

If you discard an awareness of human fallenness and our smallness in comparison with our Creator you end up with with a world where ego is everything. Retaining a concept of the infinite greatness of man whilst discarding our smallness, gives birth to people who in effect worship themselves and lose even the appreciation of the greatness of others. It matters not what a rather absent minded scientist with few social attributes has managed to achieve, wonder and amazement at what we as humans can do is immaterial; the self obsessed imagine themselves offended by his shirt and so must take him down, reduce him to tears, and force him to apologise.

Our culture of instant offence did not just happen. The restraints upon the egotistical tendency inherent in most of us have been removed. We know only entitlement and have forgotten responsibility. This means that for the Twitter warriors campaigning for what they see as social justice there is no end game, there will always be a cause for offence, however small, however imagined, because the offended are the centre of their own world.

When we discard Christianity we discard more than Christianity.


Always the masters of the warfare of vocabulary leftists have, much to the chagrin of many, captured the designation of ‘progressive’. This is with the clear intention of suggesting that any who oppose them are thereby ‘regressive’.

One of the main problems with progressives is that in their utopian desire to create the perfect society they are impatient and don’t allow society to develop. Like little children viewing the sweets at the checkout they know what they want and they want it ‘Now!’ and will have a tantrum until they get their way.

It is this infantilism, when linked to the unswerving certainty that they are indisputably right, that leads to the horrors of ‘progressive’ tyranny. In order to build the new utopia everything in the past has to be thrown away, baby with bathwater. Progressives have a constant yearning to try to start afresh from Day One.

In rejecting Christianity our progressive elites have also rejected the Christian virtues which not only made society bearable but made it safe. Virtues have been replaced by values; unfortunately values are no societal defence when those values are infinitely malleable.

One of the unacknowledged results of this wish to start de novo is that the baby inevitably gets thrown out. In deposing Christianity as the main formative influence on Western culture and replacing it with an inchoate belief in emotion as the standard by which all events and statements are to be judged we have ‘progressed’ to a situation in which society has left itself wide open to harm, all in the cause of not wishing to give ‘offence’.


Scorned by progressives as an attitude of mind which leaves the individual wide open to oppression the Christian virtue of humility has all but disappeared from society.

This has more important ramifications than the incredible rudeness of contestants on reality television. The disappearance of humility is seen in individuals and bodies putting forward their ‘demands’ rather than requests. A request opens the way to discussion and give and take; a demand opens the way to confrontation and conflict. The disappearance of humility has opened the door to a different, more selfish and divided society with its concomitant dangers.

Consider Muslims who eagerly cry out against ‘religious discrimination’ when police target them for investigation. This has led to a situation where police in the UK have ignored monstrous Muslim rape gangs operating throughout England. The Muslim religion is front and centre in a worldwide plague of violence, yet rather than sacrifice a bit of time and precious dignity to help ensure the safety of the most vulnerable of their neighbours Muslims demand that everyone reinterpret reality in order to safeguard their tender feelings.

We find police assigned to protect high-crime neighbourhoods being castigated for racism when they question youths from an ethnic minority. Yet it is inevitable that more youths from ethnic minorities are questioned by the police than any other group. The highest crime areas are those with the highest proportion of ethnic minorities and most crime is committed by young men. Those who are viewed with suspicion in such areas are inevitably going to be mainly young men from ethnic minorities. Yet the police are denounced as racist for stopping and frisking the suspicious, when the truth is the officers are trying to protect the majority of non-criminals in those mainly ethnic minority areas.

We find illegal immigrants demanding their ‘rights’, whilst breaking and thus endangering the very laws that sustain those rights for all.

We find homosexuals activists who deliberately, viciously and wickedly attempt to destroy the businesses of those who, in conscience, cannot regard them as they demand. In the UK the latest instance is the attempt is to force Ashers Bakery in Northern Ireland to bake a cake carrying propaganda in support of homosexual marriage. Ashers have been ordered by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland to apologise for giving offence to the homosexual rights activist who ordered the cake, and to give him hard cash to ameliorate the ‘offence’ caused.

H9omosexual Cake

All these are instances of selfishness, the point blank refusal to live graciously in a world of difference where some people have beliefs and customs which do not accord with ours. Instead we have the demand that everyone conforms to a particular set of minority beliefs. The progressive has a specialised concept of give and take; we do the giving, they do the taking.

The good of the majority and the good of the individual are often in conflict. Unquestioning following of the general will is a recipe for regimented tyranny. Unswerving insistence on the rights of the individual is a recipe for chaotic anarchy.


For the individual to be willing to make sacrifices for the good of the many he has to be able to value the other and be willing to make sacrifices for the good of the other. Humility sometimes demands the strength to place the well being or conscientious beliefs of others before one’s own. Paul advised us in I Corinthians 8:7 ‘Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling-block to the weak’.

Only the strong can be truly humble; perhaps this is why progressives make such strident demands for conformity.

When a society throws out Christianity it throws out more than bell-ringers and evensong, it throws out harmony between people.


In the last twenty four hours two Canadian soldiers have been murdered. One, Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, was deliberately run over in Saint Jean Sur-Richelieu, Quebec, the town which hosts Canada’s Royal Military College. The other, Corporal Nathan Cirillo of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, a ceremonial guard at the National War Memorial in Ontario was shot dead. In two cases within two days soldiers were murdered in places where you could be sure to find soldiers. Both terrorist attacks were carried out by converts to Islam.

The euphemisms immediately rolled out. Obama in particular termed the murder of Corporal Cirillo an act of ‘senseless violence’. It was not senseless violence to search out particular military target in order to commit murder in front of the National War Memorial, it was a deliberate symbolic assault on the Canadian state in the pursuit of an ideology. Just as the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby was a symbolic assault by two Muslim converts directed at the heart of the British state.

These attacks are not senseless like the shooting up of cinemas and shopping malls which seems to happen in the USA. These murders were deliberate, premeditated attacks on Western states who have the temerity to try to free Islamic countries from the horrors of ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

Our rulers, for they have stopped being representatives and have become rulers, must wake up to the fact that a virulent ideology has declared war on the West. We are in the midst of an ideological battle, and if we don’t confront the ideology itself we will lose.

When a British soldier is murdered by Islamists on the streets of the capital and David Cameron immediately goes on television to declare, ‘This is nothing to do with Islam’ even although the murderers were shouting Allahu Akbar, then we lose. When an American Muslim soldier murders thirteen unarmed service personnel in Fort Hood and the Obama White House declares it was not a terrorist attack but an incident of workplace violence, then we lose.

Unless you are willing to acknowledge that these attacks, and too many others like them, are incidents of ideological warfare and not random acts of ‘senseless violence’ then you are part of the problem. Smothering reality in a blanket of euphemisms merely serves to insulate the barbaric and gives them the freedom to continue their warfare. Appeasement never works.

The response of General Casey, Chief of Staff of the US Army, to the Fort Hood massacre is instructive, ‘What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here.

In the name of multiculturalism we refuse to confront actual danger, we are like infants holding their hands over their eyes and thinking that because they can’t see us we can’t see them.

Multiculturalism is a one-way street. President Karzai of Afghansitan had the last Christian church in Afghanistan razed to the ground whilst we in the West were expending lives and treasure to keep him alive and in power. Try opening a church in our ally Saudi Arabia where Bibles are illegal and you will find just how far multiculturalism goes. Try being a Christian anywhere in the Middle East or North Africa and you will find out how tolerant and peaceful the religion of peace is when it has power.

It is not only our secular leadership which is willfully blind. The churches must acknowledge the part they have played, both in denuding Christianity of any certainty and in giving Islam a free pass.

When we strip our culture and our faith of distinctive meaning we should not be surprised that rootless young people in search of identity will be attracted to an ideology which deals in certainty and brooks no divergence. Most will follow Meghan Trainor or Taylor Swift, but unfortunately some will choose to follow Islam. We should not be surprised that a significant portion of these converts, or reverts as Muslims term them, should choose to take the Koran seriously and try to implement its instructions with regard to ‘unbelievers’ and their states.

When a culture has its foundations deliberately eroded we should express no surprise when the entire edifice tumbles down. We should be surprised, however, when those who are meant to guard the foundations both undermine those foundations and give approval to those who would destroy the culture entirely.

When denominational leaders spend more time attacking those within the church who do not accept secular morality than they do in defending persecuted Christians, we are in trouble. When we find an archbishop of Canterbury arguing for the adoption of some aspects of Sharia law in the UK, we know our culture is in deep trouble. When we have denominational leaders, in the interests of multiculturalism and not wishing to cause offence, downplaying the gospel as the only way of salvation, we may well have lost completely.

We are in the midst of an ideological struggle. The worrying thing is that only one side is actually struggling.


In the church in Scotland there is an objection sure to be repeated whenever change of any kind is mooted, ‘But we’ve always done it that way’. In this we are probably no different from churches elsewhere. The sad truth is that it was ever thus, in fact ‘We’ve always done it this way’.


The Venerable Myopia Motionless, minister of St Rheumatics on the Knee, laid down his quill. Pushing back the scroll he shook his hoary old head and sighed, ‘Ochone and ochone’. As he ponsdered the state of the church he was forced to recall a line from a beloved hymn in his treasured hymnal Hymns Ancient & Ever So Slightly Less Decrepit, ‘Change and decay in all around I see’.

He could see no end to it all. Young ministers refusing to have a proper tonsure at the front and going in for those new fangled tonsures at the back of the skull. Well, God would have the last laugh, He didn’t create male pattern baldness for nothing.

Myopia had even heard rumours of people wanting to translate the Bible into everyday English. Preposterous, how could the church survive if people actually understood what was going on? If this continued you would end up with people in the pews actually thinking that they could understand the mysteries of the faith themselves.

Why, if that happened and all the obscurity and mystery went the officiating ministers would lose all status and esteem. The common folk in the pews might even want to start thinking for themselves and not bowing the knee to the experts, ministers like himself.

Myopia knew in his bones that once ministers stopped dressing up in cod mediaeval costume they would lose all respect. Folk would think they were just ordinary people when the magic went. What these young whippersnappers forgot is that it’s the clothes that make the man, that’s what earns respect, not the person or the message. A favourite saying of his bishop’s was ‘A dog collar covers a multitude of sins’. Just think of what a cassock and robes could cover up. Well, it worked for him.

He smiled quietly to himself as he recalled the golden age when he was a lad. The old ways were the best. Didn’t these impudent children realise that trying to change things for the better was self-defeating, how can you improve something that is perfect?

I may well have been wrong. It is possible.

At one time I would have said that whilst the USA had its culture war here in the UK there was no such thing. Any such war was was over and we had lost it before we began fighting. All that remains were a few hold-outs waging guerilla campaigns against the establishment elite who control every aspect of UK society. I’m not so sure now.

From the ’60’s onward we experienced a takeover of society by the same standardised outlook. ‘Progressive’ values are daily pumped into our homes by the media, print and broadcast. These are also the views of the major political parties who hold to only slightly nuanced versions of the same cultural ideology. The mainstream Christian denominations, despite real theological differences, articulate and practice the same progressive responses to social and moral ills.

In last week’s by-elections in Clacton and in Heywood and Middleton the main parties met with a mighty shock. UKIP won Clacton from the Conservatives and in Heywood and Middleton Labour just scraped home with a majority of 617. Both seats had previously been considered safe. Whilst considering most of UKIP’s programme to be vacuous, weak in analysis and short of detail it is heartening to see the establishment shocked into reality.

The insiders set the pace, established the parameters of debate and created the atmosphere. In these two by-elections the people, for once, said ‘No’.

We have been enmeshed in a monolithic progressive establishment holding everything in its thrall. They seem to live on some distant planet where the everyday concerns of earthlings do not impinge on their gilded lives; or if the hoi polloi are ever heard they are dismissed out of hand. This was perhaps best expressed by ex-Conservative MP Matthew Paris. When commenting on the likelihood of UKIP winning the Clacton by-election he wrote, ‘I’m not arguing that we should be careless of the needs of struggling people and places such as Clacton. But I am arguing – if I am honest – that we should be careless of their opinions.’

The establishment elite hold the people in contempt. We have witnessed in our lifetimes large scale social, economic, aesthetic and moral disruption, and been blithely assured that this is an advance, an improvement, progress. To express dissent was, prior to last week, to find oneself marginalised. When ordinary working people voiced concern about the nature of immigration into the UK they were described as ‘bigots’ by Labour and ‘loonies and nut cases’ by the Conservatives. To the increasingly irrelevant Lib Dems anyone expressing the concerns of ordinary people was racist, homophobic and probably fascist.

The usual term of denigration for UKIP has been ‘populist’. Appealing to the people and expressing their concerns is the ultimate low in the minds of our elites.

Both main parties found out last week that they can no longer rely on the tribal vote. Those who have always voted Conservative or Labour cannot be counted on to vote blue or red no matter who stands, what they promise or who leads the parties. With good reason the people don’t trust the politicians.

It is almost amusing to witness both main parties making sudden reversals in policy direction in order to hold back UKIP. Today Boris Johnson, mayor of London, says, ‘The Conservative Party must tighten up border controls to win back voters from UKIP’. Yet in 2012 in the midst of describing British workers as ‘lazy’ Johnson had called for an amnesty on over-stayers. He also criticised his own Government’s immigration cap with a warning that key firms were becoming increasingly ‘hacked off’ with the restrictions on overseas workers and that any cap was ‘damaging to business’.

Labour for their part are appalled that the working class voters whose allegiance they rely upon are actually deeply concerned about a completely different range of issues from that which exercises the bourgeois elites running Labour. We even found Ed Miliband, the day after the by-elections, shamefacedly admitting, It is not prejudiced to be concerned about immigration‘.

But its not just about immigration, its about society and its direction.

Were the by-elections victories in a UK culture war? It’s doubtful. Is UKIP going to be the standard bearer for a resurgence of social conservatism? I hope not.

What has happened is that those who have found themselves marginalised and dismissed by progressive society have been given encouragement to fight back against the machine. That includes Christians.

Presented with the picture of a declining Church in the midst of a confused culture we are too inclined to despair. We forget that initially the Church grew and flourished in the midst of an antagonistic pagan culture, not too dissimilar in its moral relativism from what we know today. The Church can grow again; and a vibrant, engaged Church is needed by unbelievers as well as believers.

Today’s political disenchantment, even insurrection, is no more than a sign of the disillusionment of many with our culture. The response to it cannot be confined solely to the political, it must go to the heart of the matter.

As people generally become aware of the failures of a secular progressive society we are presented with an opportunity. Our response must avoid either the woolly liberalism which has waffled the Church into dramatic decline, or the aggressive evangelical theocracy which demands submission across the board.

We can, with prayer, trust, hard thought and work, make real a church today which is modelled on the New Testament Church; engaged, creating caring communities, embodying the love of Christ, a Church determined and willing to turn the world the right way up again.

Tag Cloud


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 285 other followers